Bushwalk Australia

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/national-park-boundary-redrawn-for-resort-20130221-2esxv.html

Where to next?

Infuriating.

Our cattlemen cant take their cattle up there, but of course, the government can continue to develop in these areas.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Please, vote these idiots out.

I don't know what to say to that. I'm not familiar with that exact point at Falls but even if it's a pile of gravel outside of the current resort boundaries it is still a terrible precedent being set.

My god I despise these right wing pricks with all of my being.

And nobody believes me when I say that the NP status in Australia is one of the weakest in the world and that conservation here is worse than some Third World countries...

The lack of consultation is annoying, though seems par for the course for the Vic government and I am no fan of theirs.

That said, on the face of it, the tit for tat swapping of land seems reasonable enough. Can anyone identify specific conservation issues with the changes?

As Kinsayder it's more about the symbolism. If you can reduce NPs boundaries at will, what's the point of having them ?

From the map there does not seem to be any major conservation issues. What is more galling is that the Victorian people (via the Government) will receive nothing in return for their land - according to the story it was not sold, but given away.

On the same map linked to in the OP, it shows the 12Ha containing Snow Gum woodland that is being swapped for the 10Ha excised from the NP. Seems fair enough?

geoskid wrote:On the same map linked to in the OP, it shows the 12Ha containing Snow Gum woodland that is being swapped for the 10Ha excised from the NP. Seems fair enough?

Completely irrelevant. This is an issue based around the ease at which the Victorian Government will allow land to be used within national parks for commercial development.

Whether it is a small piece of land matters not, its the fact that if the Government can do it here, they can do it again, and much easier.

Yeah if you need to trade NP land to protect other parcels, what's the point... It's not even related to the resort, it's just a pathetic way of our coward government to say "please don't blame us, see, we saved some snowgums !".

Hallu wrote:Yeah if you need to trade NP land to protect other parcels, what's the point... It's not even related to the resort, it's just a pathetic way of our coward government to say "please don't blame us, see, we saved some snowgums !".

To put it in simple terms, its like saying "We no longer want to develop this block of land on Mt Buller, so lets exchange it for that nice looking block of land on Mt Stirling so we can build some hotels and ski lifts.".

I think that people need to understand that THIS is exactly where this can lead to, and with the current government that we have in Victoria, its probably where it will end up.

God knows how bad this type of thing will get if (which seems likely but I'm struggling to come to terms with) Abbott gets in. Tories running the show at State and Federal levels cannot augur well for our national parks (nor anything else).

ryantmalone wrote:

geoskid wrote:On the same map linked to in the OP, it shows the 12Ha containing Snow Gum woodland that is being swapped for the 10Ha excised from the NP. Seems fair enough?

Completely irrelevant. This is an issue based around the ease at which the Victorian Government will allow land to be used within national parks for commercial development.

Whether it is a small piece of land matters not, its the fact that if the Government can do it here, they can do it again, and much easier.

They sure can, they can also requisition land if necessary. I don't know a lot about Vic parks but 'completely irrelevant' doesn't seem an appropriate comment? (neither does 'right wing pricks (obviously) referencing a political party for that matter) (does it really set a 'precedent' there?)

I was thinking the same as Geoskid (though wouldn't have bothered to say so). Nothing has been presented, no case built here besides the fact he picked up on? If this one appears quite benign, perhaps some others (that pop up here now and then) are also (no idea but stands to reason)?

I don't like development within parks in general, in Vic some of these developments have been around a long time? Perhaps an appropriate answer Hallu would be to excise the entire resort area from the park? edit.. oh I see it wasn't a change of status, it was taken from the park.. hmmm and therefore is an alternative to 'development within the park..'

Wasn't bringing the cows down a good thing Ryan

Nuts wrote:
They sure can, they can also requisition land if necessary. I don't know a lot about Vic parks but 'completely irrelevant' doesn't seem an appropriate comment? (neither does 'right wing pricks (obviously) referencing a political party for that matter) (does it really set a 'precedent' there?)

My statement is that the trading of one piece of land for another is an irrelevant point when talking about conservation.

Like I said in my follow up post....

ryantmalone wrote:
To put it in simple terms, its like saying "We no longer want to develop this block of land on Mt Buller, so lets exchange it for that nice looking block of land on Mt Stirling so we can build some hotels and ski lifts.".

Apologies for any offence taken, none was intended.

another scenario to watch for is "land swap" when parks give away some of their land in exchange for land somewhere else...
thats how a new ski resort planned in cragieburn in canterbury got its land from doc....

That seems to be what has happened Wayno?

Ryan, i doubt anyones offended, it's just that strong opinions on environmental topics (as wev'e seen) can end up needing further explanation before 'adding them to the list'. There are many useful reasons to swap land for conservation purposes. This doesn't seem like one for conservation, expanding employment might be the only positive?

I suppose you would need a survey to compare the cost/benefit for each place (maybe there is one..) anyhow.. I cant say, not enough info, only vaguely interested but must read through the other Victorian posts one day

Nuts wrote: land for conservation purposes. This doesn't seem like one for conservation, expanding employment might be the only positive?

I suppose you would need a survey to compare the cost/benefit for each place (maybe there is one..) anyhow.. I cant say, not enough info, only vaguely interested but must read through the other Victorian posts one day

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they were building a high altitude training camp.

Makes me giggle a bit. I saw a comment on a news article somewhere comparing it to people training for deep sea diving in the Yarra.

Nuts wrote:They sure can, they can also requisition land if necessary. I don't know a lot about Vic parks but 'completely irrelevant' doesn't seem an appropriate comment? (neither does 'right wing pricks (obviously) referencing a political party for that matter) (does it really set a 'precedent' there?)

I'm not sure if there is any inaccuracy in my description.

ryantmalone wrote:I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they were building a high altitude training camp.

Makes me giggle a bit. I saw a comment on a news article somewhere comparing it to people training for deep sea diving in the Yarra.

I'm uncertain about other sporting clubs but I know that the Geelong Football Club have carried out "high altitude training" at Falls for the past couple of years. Nearing 2000m there is some merit in such claims. I imagine that resort management have seen a market in this type of thing, especially when Collingwood seem happy to throw money at such training methods (albeit 1000m higher). Perhaps as a more affordable domestic variant.

Kinsayder wrote:
I'm uncertain about other sporting clubs but I know that the Geelong Football Club have carried out "high altitude training" at Falls for the past couple of years. Nearing 2000m there is some merit in such claims. I imagine that resort management have seen a market in this type of thing, especially when Collingwood seem happy to throw money at such training methods (albeit 1000m higher). Perhaps as a more affordable domestic variant.

At Falls Creek, the air pressure is at around 83% of what it is at sea level, so its not a massive change as such. Body may have to work harder to take in oxygen, but that'd be about it.

ryantmalone wrote:
At Falls Creek, the air pressure is at around 83% of what it is at sea level, so its not a massive change as such. Body may have to work harder to take in oxygen, but that'd be about it.

I thought the working harder part was one of the main points of it. That and getting the body used to using less oxygen and thus, upon returning to sea level, the body is better able to use the greater amount of oxygen. At least that's what I've understood of it, I'm not a sports scientist though. I'd expect that for elite sports clubs to be using these methods that there must be some value in it.

around 1500m upward is the altitude where you start getting benefit from training...

Kinsayder wrote:
I thought the working harder part was one of the main points of it. That and getting the body used to using less oxygen and thus, upon returning to sea level, the body is better able to use the greater amount of oxygen. At least that's what I've understood of it, I'm not a sports scientist though. I'd expect that for elite sports clubs to be using these methods that there must be some value in it.

wayno wrote:around 1500m upward is the altitude where you start getting benefit from training...

That'd be about right Wayno, however that benefit would be questionable.

If training were done upwards of 2000 meters, I'd see that as quite justified, however at the elevation that Falls Creek is, the benefits would be minimal at best.

Pretty sure that Steve Moneghetti regularly takes training groups up Bungalow Spur to the top of Feathertop. I'd see that type of training as much more beneficial to be quite frank. The construction of a high altitude training camp at 1600 meters or so, at the surface, seems like a huge investment in a minimal result.

Then again... I'm no scientist, and I'm probably wrong.

some of the best kenyans come from. around 2100m, their heart rate on long runs is 70....

I hiked a lot in the Pyrénées, and recently in The Ramarkables in NZ, which are in the 1500-2000 m range, and I didn't feel the height much. I wasn't short of breath, but then again I always take it slow so... So I agree, doing a "high altitude training camp" at 1600 m is like a joke... Just do it higher in NZ, New Guinea or something...

On the other hand, I took the cable car to the Aiguille du Midi in the Alps, and there you can really feel you're gonna die after a couple of steps. You start at 1000 m and it takes you all the way up to 3840 m. It's touristy as hell, but it's a fun experience.

i dont notice the altitude till over 2000m, definitely a bit of a performance hit, by 2300m.

What has Collingwood/Geelong football clubs & high altitude training got to do with a shifty land grab ?????....Vicr

Haha, good call, I was actually hoping someone would explain how this was a 'shifty land grab', I'm intrigued now. Are we just all supposed to agree and move on?

Sorry, I'll rephrase that......a supposedly shifty land grab!!!!!.......Vicr

vicrev wrote:What has Collingwood/Geelong football clubs & high altitude training got to do with a shifty land grab ?????....Vicr

The Collingwood reference was to their penchant for sending their tattooed miscreants to Arizona for high altitude training. I think some other clubs (North Melbourne, maybe) are in on that type of thing. Geelong, as I mentioned, have been using Falls Creek as an off-season high altitude camp (regardless of the contrary opinions espoused here, their football department have obviously seen a level of merit in the idea).

I'm not suggesting that any AFL club is behind this "shifty land grab," but obviously resort management have seen a market and want in on it.

Well given the AFL doping scandal about to blow off, I wouldn't be surprised if it was also their drug camp, nice and quiet and away from everyone... or a good excuse to explain unusual levels of hematocrits from self blood transfusions...